Atheism causes creationism

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

What Newsite is basically saying is "Only God can judge me"

Well he certainly ain't defining what exactly he means when he says 'Christian' .

Sarky

Consistency and specificity are just not going to happen when religion is involved.

dmw07

Newsite wrote: »

Your assertion would be valid if you put moral man on the same level as God, who created you, the universe, and everything in it, and who exists infinitely through space and time.

Which, even to an atheist, might seem unreasonable

What I find unreasonable as an atheist is your assertion that something that created us, the universe, and everything in it, and who exists infinitely through space and time and that you have attributed the name god to, is on some unreachable level of moral discussion to moral men.

You must have a fairly solid foundation of proof to be able to accept your gods morals. Perhaps you've pointed out before, and I've missed it but on what level can you discuss the morals of your god on?

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

Your assertion would be valid if you put moral man on the same level as God, who created you, the universe, and everything in it, and who exists infinitely through space and time.

Which, even to an atheist, might seem unreasonable

Actually, that's an interesting point - atheists seem to hold gods to higher standards than the followers of those gods.

Religious people seem to jump through hoops to justify the apparently (to an atheist) bizarre behaviour of their alleged gods, whereas atheists seem to object immediately if a god's behaviour doesn't meet basic human standards of morality.

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

Actually, that's an interesting point - atheists seem to hold gods to higher standards than the followers of those gods.

Religious people seem to jump through hoops to justify the apparently (to an atheist) bizarre behaviour of their alleged gods, whereas atheists seem to object immediately if a god's behaviour doesn't meet basic human standards of morality.

I don't see what the problem is with either of these suggestions.

psychward

swampgas wrote: »

Actually, that's an interesting point - atheists seem to hold gods to higher standards than the followers of those gods.

Religious people seem to jump through hoops to justify the apparently (to an atheist) bizarre behaviour of their alleged gods, whereas atheists seem to object immediately if a god's behaviour doesn't meet basic human standards of morality.

Religion is all about obedience, not about morality or about independent thought or anything else which might conflict with obedience. I think that's the explanation. They try to camouflage it but it all boils down to obedience/submission.

swampgas

Dades wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is with either of these suggestions.

I wasn't being very clear - I just had one of those pattern-matching moments.

Many of the discussions on A&A follow a similar pattern, I've been trying to see what it might be.

For example, both theists and atheists can appear to be articulate, intelligent and informed, but nevertheless there is this huge gulf between them - almost as if they were from different planets. One side makes what they think is a killer argument, only for the other side to either ignore it or shrug it off as irrelevant or some basic misunderstanding of reality.

What struck me about the debate regarding how God can sit back and watch children suffer, was that atheists are not "afraid" of God - they are sufficiently confident of their own take on morality to say "I don't care if God does it, it's still wrong". On the other hand most theists seem to work from the perspective that whatever God does must be right, this suggests that their own internal sense of morality is held less confidently or is being actively suppressed.

Now I know that atheists don't believe in God, and so have no reason to be afraid of him/her/it.

However for a theist to lose their faith, there comes a point where they have to look God in the eye and say "you're wrong". After which God may very well indeed stop being real to them. If my own experience is anything to go by, there is still a point at which a believer has to challenge his or her god before being able to disbelieve, and I think this is a huge hurdle for many people.

As an atheist, I have no problem imagining that there is a God and exploring the idea, even though I always end up coming to the conclusion that God existing simply doesn't fit my reality. But when I was a devout Catholic, I really struggled to imagine that God didn't exist - because God felt real, and I could sense God's disapproval of my nasty disloyal and treacherous thoughts. So I couldn't even explore the idea of atheism for a very long time.

I suspect many theists simply cannot make themselves "think the unthinkable" - that God might not be real, that God's "morality" might be wrong, that all that pain and suffering in the world is truly incompatible with any kind of loving and benevolent deity. If you can't think that, then you can't explore the atheists arguments in your head, which might lead to the massive disconnect that seems to occur between the two sides of the debate.

[/rambling]

Dades

This idea is echoed in the "God moves in mysterious ways" endgame.

When it comes down to the wire, (some) believers will simply not entertain the idea that the God concept could be flawed enough to cast doubt on his existence. Instead they make the assumption that God has a perfectly valid reason beyond our comprehension for acting in, what is to any objective observer, a reprehensible manner.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

This idea is echoed in the "God moves in mysterious ways" endgame.

When it comes down to the wire, (some) believers will simply not entertain the idea that the God concept could be flawed enough to cast doubt on his existence. Instead they make the assumption that God has a perfectly valid reason beyond our comprehension for acting in, what is to any objective observer, a reprehensible manner.

It is actually one of things that annoys me greatly about religion, yet I can't help but admire and be utterly fascinated by it. "God works in mysterious ways", "God has a plan for all of us" etc. It's a huge get-out clause that religion has made for itself for when you come across something you don't like and could make you question God, but still allows you to continue to believe and keep the faith. Then when something good does eventually happen, "Oh, that was God".

It's really quite genius

robindch

Penn wrote: »

It's really quite genius

The funniest bit is that in choosing whether it's "good" (and therefore, part of the "plan") or "bad" (and therefore, "mysterious" or part of "infinite justice"), religious people are implicitly judging the perceived actions of their deity by their own standards -- the very thing that gets them so wound up about nontheists.

A bit of straight thinking wouldn't go amiss.

Newsite

swampgas wrote: »

One side makes what they think is a killer argument, only for the other side to either ignore it or shrug it off as irrelevant or some basic misunderstanding of reality.

I agree. My argument on the fact that the bulk of human suffering is self-evidently caused by humans sinning against other humans - man's inhumanity to man - must have been pretty killer, because it was routinely ignored in about half a dozen posts.

Which is actually kind of a head-scratcher when you think about it for a second. Because if you're an atheist, and you don't believe in God, only man alone can possibly be responsible for human suffering. Right? So, the fact that a group of atheists would ignore or otherwise not confront this in a discussion is amazing. If this is the only belief you can have as an atheist regarding the cause of suffering, then how can you not confront its truth?

swampgas wrote: »

What struck me about the debate regarding how God can sit back and watch children suffer, was that atheists are not "afraid" of God - they are sufficiently confident of their own take on morality to say "I don't care if God does it, it's still wrong". On the other hand most theists seem to work from the perspective that whatever God does must be right, this suggests that their own internal sense of morality is held less confidently or is being actively suppressed.

Which aspects of morality do you feel theists suppress? 'Suppressed', giving the impression that there is conflict between what a theist feels is right and what God deems to be right.

swampgas wrote: »

Now I know that atheists don't believe in God, and so have no reason to be afraid of him/her/it.

True. They no have no reason to be afraid of God and question and condemn his morality freely. Some of them to do it in a vitriolic manner, observed on more than a few occasions. Why then such silence on the effect of man's rebellion against God's commandments in this discussion?

swampgas wrote: »

However for a theist to lose their faith, there comes a point where they have to look God in the eye and say "you're wrong". After which God may very well indeed stop being real to them. If my own experience is anything to go by, there is still a point at which a believer has to challenge his or her god before being able to disbelieve, and I think this is a huge hurdle for many people.

Challenge in what way?

swampgas wrote: »

As an atheist, I have no problem imagining that there is a God and exploring the idea, even though I always end up coming to the conclusion that God existing simply doesn't fit my reality.

See this is where you really have to ask questions. Why would you think God's existence is dependent on your 'reality', experienced over the course of maybe 7 or 8 decades? This notion also includes by definition the belief that faith in God is the result of a decision or an action taken on your part.

swampgas wrote: »

But when I was a devout Catholic, I really struggled to imagine that God didn't exist - because God felt real, and I could sense God's disapproval of my nasty disloyal and treacherous thoughts. So I couldn't even explore the idea of atheism for a very long time.

God felt real as a result of God going to you, not the other way around. That was the source of your belief and faith.

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect many theists simply cannot make themselves "think the unthinkable" - that God might not be real, that God's "morality" might be wrong, that all that pain and suffering in the world is truly incompatible with any kind of loving and benevolent deity.

I can't help but notice the link between the fact that you said you were once 'devout Catholic' and that you believe God is supposed to be benevolent exclusively. I know Catholics aren't big on the Bible by and large but I think Catholicism has a lot to answer in terms of the fact that 9 out of 10 people think that the manifestation of God is as an all-benevolent being. I think that this is why the cry of the atheist, as exemplified by the last few pages here, is often 'how can God be real if He allows all these bad things to happen'. It's an argument based on a faulty premise - and both atheists (as seen in such posts as on this thread) and theists fall into alike.

That so many atheists thanked this thread only serves as proof that they are basing their perception of why they have deemed God to not exist on a faulty premise. Robin even said it was his primary reason for becoming an atheist in the first place!!

swampgas wrote: »

If you can't think that, then you can't explore the atheists arguments in your head, which might lead to the massive disconnect that seems to occur between the two sides of the debate.

[/rambling]

As discussed above, this too is based on the faulty premise. There is no disconnect in my mind, just plain truth.

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

I agree. My argument on the fact that the bulk of human suffering is self-evidently caused by humans sinning against other humans - man's inhumanity to man - must have been pretty killer, because it was routinely ignored in about half a dozen posts.

Which is actually kind of a head-scratcher when you think about it for a second. Because if you're an atheist, and you don't believe in God, only man alone can possibly be responsible for human suffering. Right? So, the fact that a group of atheists would ignore or otherwise not confront this in a discussion is amazing. If this is the only belief you can have as an atheist regarding the cause of suffering, then how can you not confront its truth?




Which aspects of morality do you feel theists suppress? 'Suppressed', giving the impression that there is conflict between what a theist feels is right and what God deems to be right.



True. They no have no reason to be afraid of God and question and condemn his morality freely. Some of them to do it in a vitriolic manner, observed on more than a few occasions. Why then such silence on the effect of man's rebellion against God's commandments in this discussion?



Challenge in what way?



See this is where you really have to ask questions. Why would you think God's existence is dependent on your 'reality', experienced over the course of maybe 7 or 8 decades? This notion also includes by definition the belief that faith in God is the result of a decision or an action taken on your part.



God felt real as a result of God going to you, not the other way around. That was the source of your belief and faith.



I can't help but notice the link between the fact that you said you were once 'devout Catholic' and that you believe God is supposed to be benevolent exclusively. I know Catholics aren't big on the Bible by and large but I think Catholicism has a lot to answer in terms of the fact that 9 out of 10 people think that the manifestation of God is as an all-benevolent being. I think that this is why the cry of the atheist, as exemplified by the last few pages here, is often 'how can God be real if He allows all these bad things to happen'. It's an argument based on a faulty premise - and both atheists (as seen in such posts as on this thread) and theists fall into alike.

That so many atheists thanked this thread only serves as proof that they are basing their perception of why they have deemed God to not exist on a faulty premise. Robin even said it was his primary reason for becoming an atheist in the first place!!



As discussed above, this too is based on the faulty premise. There is no disconnect in my mind, just plain truth.

I'm bored.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

The funniest bit is that in choosing whether it's "good" (and therefore, part of the "plan") or "bad" (and therefore, "mysterious" or part of "infinite justice"), religious people are implicitly judging the perceived actions of their deity by their own standards -- the very thing that gets them so wound up about nontheists.

A bit of straight thinking wouldn't go amiss.

We did go over this though...the 'bad' is based on your subjective judgment. The 'bad' as you perceive is actually 'just'. It's God being true to His word.

'Bad' would be God contradicting His own words and promises. Which is impossible. That would be what would be 'unthinkable'.

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

I agree. My argument on the fact that the bulk of human suffering is self-evidently caused by humans sinning against other humans - man's inhumanity to man - must have been pretty killer, because it was routinely ignored in about half a dozen posts.

Which is actually kind of a head-scratcher when you think about it for a second. Because if you're an atheist, and you don't believe in God, only man alone can possibly be responsible for human suffering. Right? So, the fact that a group of atheists would ignore or otherwise not confront this in a discussion is amazing. If this is the only belief you can have as an atheist regarding the cause of suffering, then how can you not confront its truth?

Who's ignoring that? I've said pretty much that earlier in this thread, and went further to say that man will also need to solve those problems as we aren't going to have a deity come along to sort it out for us.

Which aspects of morality do you feel theists suppress? 'Suppressed', giving the impression that there is conflict between what a theist feels is right and what God deems to be right.

There's no conflict as a theist has to accept what God deems to be right. Otherwise he/she is presuming to know better than God

True. They no have no reason to be afraid of God and question and condemn his morality freely. Some of them to do it in a vitriolic manner, observed on more than a few occasions. Why then such silence on the effect of man's rebellion against God's commandments in this discussion?

I'm pretty sure posters on this thread have already said that man is the cause of the problems, and will have to work on solving those problems.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The funniest bit is that in choosing whether it's "good" (and therefore, part of the "plan"(1)) or "bad" (and therefore, "mysterious" or part of "infinite justice"(2)), religious people are implicitly judging the perceived actions of their deity by their own standards -- the very thing that gets them so wound up about nontheists.

We did go over this though...the 'bad' is based on your subjective judgment. The 'bad' as you perceive is actually 'just'. It's God being true to His word.

Try reading my post again and see if you can spot the SUBJECT and the VERB of that sentence of mine you replied to.

If you're stuck, here's the answer: the bit you're looking for is the bit that starts "religious people are implicitly judging the perceived actions of their deity". The SUBJECT and VERB are the the bits I've underlined.

Now, if the SUBJECT of the sentence is "religious people" (and I'll save you the effort of looking and say that, yes, it was), then that means that I'm talking about what religious people are doing. Not what atheists are doing, since I'd say something like "atheists are implicitly judging..." if I wanted to say that. Nope, I said "religious people are implicitly judging". From this common SUBJECT-VERB construction, one of the more basic ones in English, you can conclude safely that I'm talking about religious people and what they do. In this case "judging".

You should open your heart a bit less, and your head a bit more.

(1) The fact of there being a plan being something good, and the perceived action of the deity being something to be enjoyed in a straightforward, happy way. In short, in an "I'm cured of cancer!" manner.

(2) The fact that it's bad, and the action of the deity retributive or mysterious, meaning that it's not enjoyed, but simply endured and never to be questioned. In short, in an "I've caught cancer!" manner.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

Try reading my post again and see if you can spot the SUBJECT and the VERB of that sentence of mine you replied to.

If you're stuck, here's the answer: the bit you're looking for is the bit that starts "religious people are implicitly judging the perceived actions of their deity". The SUBJECT and VERB are the the bits I've underlined.

Now, if the SUBJECT of the sentence is "religious people" (and I'll save you the effort of looking and say that, yes, it was), then that means that I'm talking about what religious people are doing. Not what atheists are doing, since I'd say something like "atheists are implicitly judging..." if I wanted to say that. Nope, I said "religious people are implicitly judging". From this common SUBJECT-VERB construction, one of the more basic ones in English, you can conclude safely that I'm talking about religious people and what they do. In this case "judging".

You should open your heart a bit less, and your head a bit more.

(1) The fact of there being a plan being something good, and the perceived action of the deity being something to be enjoyed in a straightforward, happy way. In short, in an "I'm cured of cancer!" manner.

(2) The fact that it's bad, and the action of the deity retributive or mysterious, meaning that it's not enjoyed, but simply endured and never to be questioned. In short, in an "I've caught cancer!" manner.

So you've managed to be both patronising and miss the point I was making, all in one post. I'm perfectly aware of how to differentiate between subjects and verbs, in fact I seem to do it all the time without having to mentally remind myself using block letters

My point which you missed was that the 'good' and 'bad' labels and their corresponding definitions are ones derived from that faulty premise I was talking about to which both theists and atheists are subject, and which you are using here.

God is just. The 'good' and 'bad' parts are based on the labels given to them by those who base their definitions on that faulty premise. And as I said, both atheists and theists use these definitions. It doesn't matter who espouses them. So drawing a distinction between the two 'groups' in the emphatic way you've done only reinforces that you really did miss my point.

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

I agree. My argument on the fact that the bulk of human suffering is self-evidently caused by humans sinning against other humans - man's inhumanity to man - must have been pretty killer, because it was routinely ignored in about half a dozen posts.

Which is actually kind of a head-scratcher when you think about it for a second. Because if you're an atheist, and you don't believe in God, only man alone can possibly be responsible for human suffering. Right? So, the fact that a group of atheists would ignore or otherwise not confront this in a discussion is amazing. If this is the only belief you can have as an atheist regarding the cause of suffering, then how can you not confront its truth?

Not all of the world's afflictions are directly caused by man's inhumanity to man. Natural disasters such as earthquakes for example, never mind diseases such as malaria and cancer, are very much part of the natural (God created?) world.

In any case, I would argue that if there is a supreme being, the buck stops with it - whatever the specific agent of pain and suffering might be.

You also mention "the bulk" of human suffering - does that mean that you accept that the remainder is in fact inflicted on the world by God?

Which aspects of morality do you feel theists suppress? 'Suppressed', giving the impression that there is conflict between what a theist feels is right and what God deems to be right.

IMO everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong. So when you have a religion or other belief system imposing an external set of morals, your internal set may conflict with it. Granted, people seem to go for belief systems that seem to match their own predispositions, but there will always be some differences. The specific differences don't matter - what matters is that by giving the external system precedence, you are tacitly accepting that your innate morality is inferior. This is what I mean by not having confidence in your own (innate) morality.

True. They no have no reason to be afraid of God and question and condemn his morality freely. Some of them to do it in a vitriolic manner, observed on more than a few occasions. Why then such silence on the effect of man's rebellion against God's commandments in this discussion?

The very concept of "Man's rebellion against God's commandments" is something that is completely meaningless to me, as I don't accept that Man can do such a thing. If God made Man and God made the commandments, if there is a rebellion, the buck stops with God. I simply don't accept that God can create Man and then object to Man's behaviour.

Challenge in what way?

Decide that their god isn't worthy of worship & respect. Challenge God to explain the apparently terrible things that he allows to happen in the world.
(Of course god never seems to talk back, so it's a pretty one-sided conversation.)

See this is where you really have to ask questions. Why would you think God's existence is dependent on your 'reality', experienced over the course of maybe 7 or 8 decades? This notion also includes by definition the belief that faith in God is the result of a decision or an action taken on your part.

My experience of reality is all I have to go on - if you like, my "leap of faith" is that the world around me, my reality, can best be understood through my normal physical senses.

God felt real as a result of God going to you, not the other way around. That was the source of your belief and faith.

IMO God felt real because I was indoctrinated by very devout parents from the moment I was born.

I can't help but notice the link between the fact that you said you were once 'devout Catholic' and that you believe God is supposed to be benevolent exclusively.

My drift from belief started as soon as I realised that there were other religions, whose adherents believed they were right just as much as Catholics did. That meant that you could believe deeply in something that was in fact untrue. Over time I found religion more and more inconsistent with reality, and as I learned more about science, religion and psychology, the more I figured that man made god, not the other way round.

I know Catholics aren't big on the Bible by and large but I think Catholicism has a lot to answer in terms of the fact that 9 out of 10 people think that the manifestation of God is as an all-benevolent being. I think that this is why the cry of the atheist, as exemplified by the last few pages here, is often 'how can God be real if He allows all these bad things to happen'. It's an argument based on a faulty premise - and both atheists (as seen in such posts as on this thread) and theists fall into alike.

That so many atheists thanked this thread only serves as proof that they are basing their perception of why they have deemed God to not exist on a faulty premise. Robin even said it was his primary reason for becoming an atheist in the first place!!

As discussed above, this too is based on the faulty premise. There is no disconnect in my mind, just plain truth.

Interesting. Are you are claiming that the God you believe in, is in fact capable of evil? Yet still worthy of worship and adoration?

I accept your point that it is an assumption on my part that God is meant to be benevolent, based on the way I was indoctrinated. Christianity does seem to push the message that "God is Love" pretty hard. John 3:16 springs to mind ...

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

And as I said, both atheists and theists use these definitions. It doesn't matter who espouses them. So drawing a distinction between the two 'groups' in the emphatic way you've done only reinforces that you really did miss my point.

And you missed my point, for a third time, by a country mile.

Yes, religious people and non-religious people use the terms good and bad.

However, non-religious people (or at least those who don't assert the existence of an absolute definer of good and bad) are happy to admit that the terms are completely relative, defined by one's culture, defined by one's own personal understanding, circumstances etc, etc.

Religious people, on the other hand, while having pretty much the same understanding of good and bad (nonsense about gays etc notwithstanding) declare that (a) all actions by their deity are uniformly good, while (b) also dividing up those things that happen into (1) things that are good for humans (ie, "I'm cured of cancer!") which they genuinely enjoy as gifts from the deity's lap and (2) things which are bad for humans (ie, "I've caught cancer!") which, while occasionally pretending to accept, they certainly do not enjoy.

This difference in reaction means that religious people don't actually believe what they say they believe, namely, that all actions by their deity are uniformly good.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

And you missed my point, for a third time, by a country mile.

Yes, religious people and non-religious people use the terms good and bad.

However, non-religious people (or at least those who don't assert the existence of an absolute definer of good and bad) are happy to admit that the terms are completely relative, defined by one's culture, defined by one's own personal understanding, circumstances etc, etc.

Religious people, on the other hand, while having pretty much the same understanding of good and bad (nonsense about gays etc notwithstanding) declare that (a) all actions by their deity are uniformly good, while (b) also dividing up those things that happen into (1) things that are good for humans (ie, "I'm cured of cancer!") which they genuinely enjoy as gifts from the deity's lap and (2) things which are bad for humans (ie, "I've caught cancer!") which, while occasionally pretending to accept, they certainly do not enjoy.

This difference in reaction means that religious people don't actually believe what they say they believe, namely, that all actions by their deity are uniformly good.

I do get your point. But you're still missing mine. Regardless of what culture we are from, or what our personal circumstances are, or whether we are religious or non-religious, we are all humans. And humans, when it comes to the big stuff, generally concur that certain things are 'bad' - e.g. cancer, crime, take your pick.

Now, where did I say that everything that God does is 'good', as defined in the above human terms? Again, we're back to the Catholic presentation of God, which you and others will have grown up with and can't help but be influenced by.

Delirium

So God commits acts of evil?

Newsite

swampgas wrote: »

The very concept of "Man's rebellion against God's commandments" is something that is completely meaningless to me, as I don't accept that Man can do such a thing. If God made Man and God made the commandments, if there is a rebellion, the buck stops with God. I simply don't accept that God can create Man and then object to Man's behaviour.

If your belief was valid, and the 'buck stops with God', then it means that man cannot be held accountable for anything he does. The fact that there is 'rebellion' in the first place means that there is a choice open to rebel in the first place. And that is the story of the Bible - that man chose the ways of the world over God's commandments. Of course, if you don't believe, then it will be meaningless to you.

swampgas wrote: »

Decide that their god isn't worthy of worship & respect. Challenge God to explain the apparently terrible things that he allows to happen in the world.
(Of course god never seems to talk back, so it's a pretty one-sided conversation.)

If you've gotten to the stage where you've deemed that God isn't worthy of respect, then you're no longer a believer. At that point, there would be no difference between that person, and someone like yourself.

swampgas wrote: »

My experience of reality is all I have to go on - if you like, my "leap of faith" is that the world around me, my reality, can best be understood through my normal physical senses.

Yup, and this is the hallmark of the unbeliever. The physical, natural world is all you can understand and perceive, because God can only be 'spiritually discerned'. So if you stand opposed to Him, it is because you haven't be given the gift to understand yet.

By the way this isn't just me opining on your posts - the above is taken direct from the Bible (paraphrasing of course).

swampgas wrote: »

IMO God felt real because I was indoctrinated by very devout parents from the moment I was born.

'Indoctrinated' is a most dubious term. I could never know whether you truly believed or not and whether you showed fruits of this, whether you were given that gift from God, or whether it was just a 'have to go to mass on Sunday because the folks say so' kind of thing.

swampgas wrote: »

I accept your point that it is an assumption on my part that God is meant to be benevolent, based on the way I was indoctrinated. Christianity does seem to push the message that "God is Love" pretty hard. John 3:16 springs to mind ...

Yep it does, because they don't like the bits they deem to be too unpalatable. For example, in approx 25-30 years of going to mass, I never once recall the word 'hell' or 'devil', or 'God's wrath' being mentioned in mass. Seeing as the Bible is full of references to these, it seems odd, doesn't it? Could there be something going on there?

Doctor DooM

Newsite wrote: »

Of course, if you don't believe, then it will be meaningless to you...




So if you stand opposed to Him, it is because you haven't be given the gift to understand yet.




'Indoctrinated' is a most dubious term.

Lol, the mental gymnastics are amazing.

My dog Zeus is able to shoot lasers from his eyes. I know he can, because I believe in them and I see them. But people who don't believe in Zeus first, they will never see the lasers. Zeus himself told me this, and I know it in my heart. Those Azuesists will not see the lasers until they accept him in their heart, truly.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

I do get your point. But you're still missing mine. Regardless of what culture we are from, or what our personal circumstances are, or whether we are religious or non-religious, we are all humans. And humans, when it comes to the big stuff, generally concur that certain things are 'bad' - e.g. cancer, crime, take your pick.

Do check the fourth sentence in my post where I said exactly that.

Newsite wrote: »

Now, where did I say that everything that God does is 'good', as defined in the above human terms?

Fourth time, missed the point.

I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible -- in short, according to your beliefs, you must accept either (a) that everything that happens to you is a manifestation of the will of your deity and therefore everything that happens to you is "good" (in which case, why are you not happy when things that you perceive as "bad" happen to you? Surely you're just misperceiving good things as bad), or (b) that not everything that happens to you is a manifestation of the will of your deity (in which case your deity is not running the universe as you probably believe it is) or (c) your deity is capable, as koth points out, of doing bad shit (in which case, your deity is not "all-loving").

Which one is it?

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

[ ... ]
Yup, and this is the hallmark of the unbeliever. The physical, natural world is all you can understand and perceive, because God can only be 'spiritually discerned'. So if you stand opposed to Him, it is because you haven't be given the gift to understand yet.

This is the fundamental difference in world-view between us, I think.

As far as I can figure out, the mind/consciousness/self is an emergent property of the brain. The natural, physical world is all I can perceive, because I am a natural, physical being.

Mind you, i don't feel in any way limited by that - the "physical, natural world" is a staggeringly amazing place.

You on the other hand seem to believe that there is a part of your mind that is somehow connected to some kind of supernatural plane of existence.

I can't see that I can be persuaded that the supernatural world is real, because it it were provably real, it wouldn't be supernatural any more.

And I can't persuade you that your supernatural world doesn't exist, because you truly believe that you can "sense" it with your mind.

Bit of an impasse, isn't it?

Dimithy

King Mob wrote: »

Newsite, again you're ignoring my point.

Why didn't God destroy the Nazi regime with supernatural explosions like her did with Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did he have to send millions of troops to die?
Why didn't he send any destruction to end the Soviet regime?

What did Sodom and Gomorrah do that was so much worse than these guys?

I know it's been a few days since the last post in this thread, but I've been waiting patiently for the answer to this question.
Surely another example of these "mysterious ways" we're always hearing about.

Bannasidhe

Dimithy wrote: »

I know it's been a few days since the last post in this thread, but I've been waiting patiently for the answer to this question.
Surely another example of these "mysterious ways" we're always hearing about.

You mean why was there Free Will which allowed the Nazis and Soviets to behave the way they wished but no Free Will when it came to Sodom and Gomorrah behaving the way they wished to? Perhaps it was because S & G turned their back on God and...no.... That can't be it - the Soviets were aggressively atheistic - definitely counts as turning ones back on God.....

Must be 'mysterious ways' alright....

Dimithy

There must be something we're missing......

Bannasidhe

Dimithy wrote: »

There must be something we're missing......

We canna have Faith.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean why was there Free Will which allowed the Nazis and Soviets to behave the way they wished but no Free Will when it came to Sodom and Gomorrah behaving the way they wished to? Perhaps it was because S & G turned their back on God and...no.... That can't be it - the Soviets were aggressively atheistic - definitely counts as turning ones back on God.....

Must be 'mysterious ways' alright....

No its because S&G turned their backs in other ways methinks, the greatest crime of all

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

No its because S&G turned their backs in other ways methinks, the greatest crime of all

You mean they were...dare I say it?...I dare, I dare.... Gomorrahites?